Study shows powerful corporations really do control the world's finances

Aug 19, 2011 by Bob Yirka report
Network topology with a zoom on some major transnational corporations in the financial sector. Image from arXiv:1107.5728v1 [q-fin.GN].

(PhysOrg.com) -- For many years conventional wisdom has said that the whole world is controlled by the monied elite, or more recently by the huge multi-national corporations that seem to sometime control the very air we breathe. Now, new research by a team based in ETH-Zurich, Switzerland, has shown that what we’ve suspected all along, is apparently true. The team has uploaded their results onto the preprint server arXiv.

Using data obtained (circa 2007) from the Orbis database (a global database containing financial information on public and private companies) the team, in what is being heralded as the first of its kind, analyzed data from over 43,000 corporations, looking at both upstream and downstream connections between them all and found that when graphed, the data represented a bowtie of sorts, with the knot, or core representing just 147 entities who control nearly 40 percent of all of monetary value of transnational corporations (TNCs).

In this analysis the focus was on corporations that have ownership in their own assets as well as those of other institutions and who exert influence via ownership in second, third, fourth, etc. tier entities that hold influence over others in the web, as they call it; the interconnecting of TNCs that together make up the whole of the largest corporations in the world. In analyzing the data they found, and then in building the network maps, the authors of the report sought to uncover the structure and control mechanisms that make up the murky world of corporate finance and ownership.

To zero in on the significant controlling corporations, the team started with a list of 43,060 TNCs taken from a sample of 30 million economic “actors” in the Orbis database. They then applied a recursive algorithm designed to find and point out all of the ownership pathways between them all. The resulting TNC network produced a graph with 600,508 nodes and 1,006,987 ownership connections. The team then graphed the results in several different ways to show the different ways that corporate ownership is held; the main theme in each, showing that just a very few corporations through direct and indirect ownership (via stocks, bonds, etc.) exert tremendous influence over the actions of those , which in turn exert a huge impact on the rest of us.

The authors conclude their report by asking, perhaps rhetorically, what are the implications of having so few exert so much influence, and perhaps more importantly, in an economic sense, what the implications are of such a structure on market competitiveness.

Explore further: Christmas cracker pulling: How to send everyone home a winner

More information: The network of global corporate control, Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder, Stefano Battiston, arXiv:1107.5728v1 [q-fin.GN] arxiv.org/abs/1107.5728

Abstract
The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic "super-entity" that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.

Via Sciencenews.org

Related Stories

Large Shareholders Impact Companies' Profitability, Policies

Sep 05, 2006

Corporations can't choose their shareholders, but some might wish they could. A new study found that some large shareholders are associated with lower-than-average returns for the companies in which they invest, while other ...

Stock ownership US Congress influenced voting on bailout

Mar 29, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Personal investments in the stock of financial institutions by members of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Unites States was positively associated with these institutions receiving bailout ...

Recommended for you

Why are UK teenagers skipping school?

8 hours ago

Analysis of the results of a large-scale survey reveals the extent of truancy in English secondary schools and sheds light on the mental health of the country's teens.

Fewer lectures, more group work

8 hours ago

Professor Cees van der Vleuten from Maastricht University is a Visiting Professor at Wits University who believes that learning should be student centred.

User comments : 209

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
1.7 / 5 (34) Aug 19, 2011
Who else is going to control the world's money but the world's monied?

The Gob'mint? Yeah, like that has worked out well over the past century. Every time the police power of the State is used to control monetary and fiscal policy, havoc ensues.
Sancho
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 19, 2011
This is a study that proves a tautology, right? My quibble is with the study's faulty premise: that corporations are "persons." They are a legal fiction. Question is: who controls the corporations? The study, unfortunately, does not enlighten us there....
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (29) Aug 19, 2011
How many of the "huge multi-national corporations "
are public companies? Meaning the company is owned by shareholders. Shareholders like union pension funds, state pension funds, 401ks......
Nanobanano
3.5 / 5 (31) Aug 19, 2011
No Independent Thought!

http://www.youtub...lx3GnLGs

We know how to build an economy! We are the Tea Party!!

Submit little cattle and obey your wealthy masters!

Buy designer clothes! You can at least pretend to be wealthy!

We will cut taxes on the wealthy, hell, why do we tax the wealthy anyway? Let's not tax them at all! We will raise taxes on the bottom 90%, that'll show them!
Nanobanano
4 / 5 (24) Aug 19, 2011
Hmmm...

Like half the companies in that diagram had to be "bailed out" by the U.S. gov'ment that Rygg and shootist hates so much. The corporations owned the gov'ment, hid their money in off-shores accounts, and then raped the people.

Yah, Corporations are such a good lot to leave in control of the world.

Half the ones on the list are bankrupt, or else falsifying records just so they could rob people some more.
Arkaleus
2.7 / 5 (23) Aug 19, 2011
Information like this is extremely important for societies that prefer self-determination and limitations of wealth and power. Unless we can visualize the structure of "power" we have no ability to understand it or predict its effects.

The structure itself is not evil, it's just how our complex society relates to the material realities of living on a single world at our population and technology level.

The problems we face are more related to individuals and groups who use this structure to overpower rational forms of limited government and do harm to human life to fulfill their own ego-centered motives.

The ability of people to prevent abuses and preserve rational self-government hinges on our ability to understand great powers, their relationships, and assemble the totality of its construct in our minds.

Sadly, the ability to do so is strongly discouraged and even purposely disrupted by those hiding within it as anonymity grants them security and keeps the governed impotent.
ForFreeMinds
1.7 / 5 (23) Aug 19, 2011
Missing from the network, are government entities that control significant assets of listed entities. After all, the Federal Government owns much of GM and Chrysler, and has interest in many of the banks bailed out by politicians (politicians didn't have to bail out the banks - they could have said no) via the Troubled Asset Relief Program. And there's also Fannie/Freddie which have trillions on their balance sheets. Government actors weren't included here, and why not, after all they are "other institutions" "who exert influence via ownership." Besides, governmental organizations "exert influence" via regulations (which control the companies to some extent), subsidies, bailouts and restrictions on competition.

Lacking this, the study's authors paint a misleading picture of the world controlled by "147 companies who control nearly 40 percent of all of monetary value of transnational corporations (TNCs)" Instead, it's government controlling these and most other corporations.
Arkaleus
2.8 / 5 (22) Aug 19, 2011
@ ForFreeMinds

We need to establish a realistic criterion for identifying the controlling parties between governments and corporations. If Government officials and corporate officers are often the same individuals, shouldn't they be considered the same entity?

We traditionally view such relationships as corruption or corporatism, but the public does not generally perceive this as a negative due to the manipulation of information flow. Regardless of public perception, the effects of widespread corporatism is the distortion of social government and eventually the collapse of social stability as the dominant entities help themselves to the resources of the helpless.

Without understanding the structure and identifying the factions, we can't form effective strategies to combat the destructive effects of human error at this scale.

It's really the same problem confronted by our Founding Fathers when considering the limits and balance the republic. They distrusted corporations also.
JamesK
5 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2011
@ForFreeMinds

Direct quote from this article "Using data obtained (circa 2007) from the Orbis database". TARP wasn't until 2008. Also, the point in regulation is to prevent this massive corporate power. The idea that large corporations will stop getting larger and more powerful if we regulate them LESS is preposterous. We need to elect people who will stand up against these businesses and the corrupt/dangerous practices that lead to economic distress.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (31) Aug 19, 2011
Information like this is extremely important for societies that prefer self-determination and limitations of wealth and power. Unless we can visualize the structure of "power" we have no ability to understand it or predict its effects.
'Self-determination' invariably results in appointing experts who know far more about running things than the people who appoint them, and far more time in which to do so.

Running things is a full-time job best left to People who know what they are doing, and not the public who will always act based upon rumor, fashion, and hype.

This includes pseudo-intellectuals like yourself whose fashion statements only include bigger words in much longer sentences.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (26) Aug 19, 2011
"The grand pursuit of economics is to overcome scarcity and increase the production of goods and services. Keynesians believe that the economic problem is abundance: too much production and goods on the shelf and too few consumers. Consumers lined up for blocks to buy things in empty stores in communist Russia, but that never sparked production. In macroeconomics today, there is a fatal disregard for the heroes of the economy: the entrepreneur, the risk-taker, the one who innovates and creates the things we want to buy. "All economic problems are about removing impediments to supply, not demand," Arthur Laffer reminds us. "
http://online.wsj...610.html
The few that exert the influence are the govts.
The many that exert the most influence are the customers, if there are free markets for competitors.
Nanobanano
3.1 / 5 (21) Aug 19, 2011
Rygg:

You're either an idiot, or a deciever...

"All economic problems are about removing impediments to supply, not demand,"


Automation removes the demand for labor, moron.

This then removes the SUPPLY of money in the hands of everyone else who would have had jobs, moron.

You know nothing.

Because of patent laws and because of a tax system that allows the wealthy to hoard wealth indefinitely, this further concentrates wealth in the hands of a few people, while 14 million in the U.S. alone have no jobs, and that's only if you count the ones who haven't yet given up looking...

Your insane elitist world view is about to crash over the next several years as normal people will become sick and tired of being controlled by banks and a few other companies that own everything through "legal", yet evil practises.
Moebius
3.4 / 5 (20) Aug 19, 2011
Giant corporations are a very bad idea. We will eventually regret allowing them to grow by buying other companies that have nothing to do with their core business. We have already seen a sign with the financial bailouts of 'corporations too big to fail'. It's one thing to grow by selling your product, it's a whole other issue growing by acquisition. Like most things we will wake up when it's too late.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (29) Aug 19, 2011
The ability of people to prevent abuses and preserve rational self-government hinges on our ability to understand great powers, their relationships, and assemble the totality of its construct in our minds.
-Which is absolutely impossible for you or anybody else to do who is not a committed expert in the field(s) or is not actively and intimately involved in one or more of them.

The People who ARE involved in these Endeavors are far more educated than you, far more experienced, and far more clever at maintaining their Control and evading detection, than you. Or anybody you know.

Further, their modus operandi changes frequently to match evolving market conditions. They have teams of top notch advisors to monitor these conditions and maximize their operations.

In short, you have no chance of understanding what They do or how They do it, much less affecting Their ability to do what They do or preventing Them from doing it to YOU.

Got any other bright ideas?
unityemissions
1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2011
I got an idea.

Chop off the experts heads along with the scumy elite bastards.

Problem solved.

What are you bringing to the table?
gstark
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2011
The study is about control.

Shareholders don't generally exercise control.

It would be interesting to see the network of the Boards of Directors in the 50 firms.
yamfood
not rated yet Aug 19, 2011
We may not be able to understand the machinations of the powerful now, but we must never stop trying to understand them. What is better, to sit ignorantly and be ruled by kings we can't even name? Or to fight valiantly no matter how long? You can't fool all the people all of the time, so somebody out there knows something. If enough people who know something get together, then we can overcome our rulers and be free!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2011
Shareholders don't generally exercise control.

Shareholders can sell their shares and not patronize the company.
Only a govt and a criminal can use force to take your money.
an_p
5 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2011

The People who ARE involved in these Endeavors are far more educated than you, far more experienced, and far more clever at maintaining their Control and evading detection, than you. Or anybody you know.

Further, their modus operandi changes frequently to match evolving market conditions. They have teams of top notch advisors to monitor these conditions and maximize their operations.

In short, you have no chance of understanding what They do or how They do it, much less affecting Their ability to do what They do or preventing Them from doing it to YOU.


so true! like a virus - time to get the immune system up to date.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (29) Aug 19, 2011
We may not be able to understand the machinations of the powerful now, but we must never stop trying to understand them.
You can't. You would have to hire experts to try and figure it out for you, and then tell you there's nothing you can do about it.
What is better, to sit ignorantly and be ruled by kings we can't even name?
Yes. They know what they're doing. You don't.
Or to fight valiantly no matter how long?
Consider, prince valiant, that you very well could be (are) wrong, and They are right.
You can't fool all the people all of the time
No, only until they're dead.
so somebody out there knows something. If enough people who know something get together, then we can overcome our rulers and be free!
Free... to overpopulate, overconsume, fight over the dregs and destroy the world.

They're NOT going to let that happen.

But hey - knock yourself out. They're counting on it. Conform or resist - either way They profit.

It's called Win-Win.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (23) Aug 19, 2011
No wait - you were being facetious weren't you?

No matter. Hail EMPIRE!
Shootist
1.6 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2011
Hmmm...

Like half the companies in that diagram had to be "bailed out" by the U.S. gov'ment that Rygg and shootist hates so much. The corporations owned the gov'ment, hid their money in off-shores accounts, and then raped the people.

Yah, Corporations are such a good lot to leave in control of the world.

Half the ones on the list are bankrupt, or else falsifying records just so they could rob people some more.


Didn't have to be bailed out. Too big to fail in a BAD idea. No organization should be too big to fail.

I don't trust the gob'mint. I don't like corporations. But I distrust the gob'mint more than I dislike corporations. Corporations don't generally have police powers. Corporation cannot force me, on threat of imprisonment, to pay taxes.

So, no matter how 'bad' corporations' are, gob'mint is usually worse. In every manner conceivable.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (20) Aug 19, 2011
"What makes a country rich? Its not natural resources. Lots of places are rich in resources but still poor in standards of living. The real answer is economic freedom. Countries that have the most economic freedom also tend to have higher rates of long-term economic growth and are more prosperous than those that have less economic freedom."
"More private property rights, more freedom, less politics equals more people living better and longer. Fewer property rights, less freedom and more politics equals stagnation at best. Period. That's the indisputable fact."
"That's just as true for states or provinces as it is for countries. A new study from the Mercatus Center on the campus of Virginias George Mason University confirms that among the 50 states of the U.S., those that allow the most personal and economic freedom are also the ones with the best long-term growth rates."
http://www.facebo...63006703
socean
5 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2011
http://www.physor...lth.html

Politics and ideology aside, wealth tends to concentrate. A network in which some nodes are more vital than others is inherently more vulnerable and less adaptive. And, as the network coalesces around certain nodes, the number of connection options drops resulting in a reduction of overall "vitality".

If we want our economy/network to grow and be resilient, we need to counteract the natural tendency of resources to concentrate.
thingumbobesquire
2 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2011
What this study studiously avoids is that there are a network of families that control world finance. They are none other than the British and Dutch royalty, which comprise the Inter Alpha group. However, that characterization is somewhat misleading, because these families are actually not based in states per se. They have always been a shadow oligarchy controlling Europe and most of the globe that knows no state boundaries, inter-marrying in a rather incestuous manner. Take Prince Phillip(who declares that he desires to be reincarnated as a virus to control population) for instance. He's Greek.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 20, 2011
we need to counteract the natural tendency of resources to concentrate

You said 'political and ideology aside' and then proceed to advocate a political ideology, socialism.
Who is 'we' and what how do you intend to 'counteract the NATURAL tendency'?
Free markets have been proven to increase the wealth and prosperity of all. Soros, Buffet and the 'super rich' oppose free markets because they must then compete. They would rather use govt to control, cheaper and less risky for them.
_nigmatic10
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2011
this is one of those studies that are a no-brainer for anyone with half a brain.

The problem is how do we take back the freedoms they continue to destroy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (21) Aug 20, 2011
this is one of those studies that are a no-brainer for anyone with half a brain.

The problem is how do we take back the freedoms they continue to destroy.
Yeah ok, I'll bite... What freedoms are 'they' destroying that you might otherwise have if 'they' weren't destroying them?

And just to be balanced, what freedoms might you not have if 'they' weren't busy providing them for you to begin with?

The Empire giveth and the Empire taketh away.
marraco
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2011
What if a single corporation profited more than a dollar for each one ever printed? That would create a debt impossible to pay.

There is a documentary about it on youtube, named "the secret of OZ", but is 3 hours long. Too long.
Shootist
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2011
Yeah ok, I'll bite... What freedoms are 'they' destroying that you might otherwise have if 'they' weren't destroying them?


All of the following happened in Florida, in the 1970s.

When I was a lad of 12 and 13, I rode to school on a school bus with other junior high school students. Every school day for two grading periods I carried my Remington model Nylon 66 .22 cal rimfire semi-automatic rifle to school, on this school bus. As did all my classmates that owned .22 cal rimfire rifles. We also carried the ammunition for these firearms.

You see, for one 9 week grading period a year, Physical Education was riflery, with an NRA instructor. 7th and 8th graders with guns. And bullets.

When I was 16 and 17, we would pack our 12 ga. shotguns in the trunks of our cars, or behind the seat of our trucks, and after school, go hunt quail, dove and rabbit, on school property, with, and without, teachers and administrators hunting with us.

Those freedoms are gone.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Aug 20, 2011
I carried my Remington model Nylon 66 .22 cal rimfire semi-automatic rifle to school, on this school bus. As did all my classmates that owned .22 cal rimfire rifles. We also carried the ammunition for these firearms.

You see, for one 9 week grading period a year, Physical Education was riflery, with an NRA instructor. 7th and 8th graders with guns. And bullets.

When I was 16 and 17, we would pack our 12 ga. shotguns in the trunks of our cars, or behind the seat of our trucks, and after school, go hunt quail, dove and rabbit, on school property, with, and without, teachers and administrators hunting with us.

Those freedoms are gone.
Leider so. What do those school grounds look like today? Have the quail been replaced by pigeons and Quickie Marts yet?

When I grew up guns were tools, nothing more, nothing less. We had a rifle range in our jr/sr high school, for the rifle team. I took it in gym class.

Population growth naturally restricts all sorts of freedom.
Shootist
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2011
The High School sits were it has always sat; in the middle ranch and mine land.

The Jr. High went away when 'middle school' was invented.

Population growth naturally restricts all sorts of freedom.


No, a complacent citizenry, combined with reaction politics and bureaucratic turtling cause such. It shouldn't.

Many of us are no longer politically complacent.

And there are still localities where such should happen, but won't.
iPan
not rated yet Aug 20, 2011
Decentralize

that is all, kthxbai
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (20) Aug 20, 2011
No, a complacent citizenry, combined with reaction politics and bureaucratic turtling cause such. It shouldn't.
Basically - that is, scraping away all the hype and politics - more people contending for staples of land, food, utilities, jobs etc causes contention and results in more compromise ie restricted freedoms.

You are less able to do whatever you want without impinging upon someone elses desire to do so. This is obvious.

Rarely are citizens complacent when they are feeling restricted, as are you.
kcasey415
1 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2011
i'm an idiot with no mind or ability to know what i say...plus i'm a flaming liberal who loves barak obama and would sniff his butt if i could
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2011
The question rather is, why just the most powerful corporations should influent world finances in smaller extent, than the less significant ones. It would be a sort of oxymoron of the "powerful" word. From this perspective the above research is rather trivial..
Shootist
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2011
I hear the impinging argument but only give it slight notice. Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Speech. Or any of the other innumerated, and reserved rights mentioned in the Constitution.

However, what TSA and Dept of Homeland Security have done to Air Travel, is a crime. If that doesn't impinge upon the Right to be Secure in your Person and Papers, and the right of Travel, I don't know would.
PaulRadcliff
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2011
The problem with this scenario, is the "absolute power, corrupts absolutely" axiom. Not yet proven in any court, the "inside job of 911" culprits will never be brought to justice, although one hired hand, OBL is now dead. What about the guys who are still getting rich off of the continuous 'war on terror' that resulted from 911? These "unproven", but probable criminals are rich and powerful "leaders" and business owners and investors with many friends that also profit from these evil mass murderers. Why should we, as a peace loving society, put up with possibilities like these???
The standard response from these same wealthy elite would be:"What 'ya gonna do about it?" Write about it and only set myself up for ridicule, as a conspiracy nut or crack pot. But many do see the same evidence I see and tend to believe. Alien Scientist has informative videos on You-Tube re: this topic. Very enlightening and disturbing, if verified, someday.....
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2011
Why should we, as a peace loving society, put up with possibilities like these???

Why does this regime continue to deny US companies from developing oil resources in the US and Canada so the US can import less and drive down the cost of oil, sending fewer $$ to the middle east?
Gilbert
not rated yet Aug 20, 2011

Population growth naturally restricts all sorts of freedom.


No, a complacent citizenry, combined with reaction politics and bureaucratic turtling cause such. It shouldn't.

Many of us are no longer politically complacent.

And there are still localities where such should happen, but won't.


Doesn't an increased population found complacency though? I mean it really increases the number of those , if you consider that the "ratio" remains the same,

the way things work though it's still numbers that count. if you increase the population there is increased issues, and increased fringe ideas, when voting on one point, all those with fringe ideas would be considered "complacent", as their's don't fit with the "yes or no", or "option 1, 2, 3 or 4," their opinion would be considered in the "other" category (the complacent category), and an increased population would increase the ratio of "other categories" to normal ones?

does that make sense the way i wrote it?
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2011
"A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Florida accuses the Coca-Cola Company, its Colombian subsidiary and business affiliates of using paramilitary death squads to murder, torture, kidnap and threaten union leaders at the multinational soft drink manufacturers Colombian bottling plants. The suit was filed on July 20(2001) by the United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund on behalf of SINALTRAINAL, the Colombian union that represents workers at Coca-Colas Colombian bottling plants; the estate of a murdered union leader; and five other unionists who worked for Coca-Cola and were threatened, kidnapped or tortured by paramilitaries."

Some corporations operate like the CIA, and I don't mean the Culinary Institute of America, either.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2011
"A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Florida accuses the Coca-Cola Company, its Colombian subsidiary and business affiliates of using paramilitary death squads to murder, torture, kidnap and threaten union leaders at the multinational soft drink manufacturers Colombian bottling plants. The suit was filed on July 20 by the United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund on behalf of SINALTRAINAL, the Colombian union that represents workers at Coca-Colas Colombian bottling plants; the estate of a murdered union leader; and five other unionists who worked for Coca-Cola and were threatened, kidnapped or tortured by paramilitaries."

Some corporations operate like the CIA, and I don't mean the Culinary Institute of America, either.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2011
I don't trust the gob'mint. I don't like corporations. But I distrust the gob'mint more than I dislike corporations. Corporations don't generally have police powers. Corporation cannot force me, on threat of imprisonment, to pay taxes.

You have that backwards. Mussolini himself stated "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
kochevnik
3 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2011
A new study from the Mercatus Center on the campus of Virginias George Mason University confirms that among the 50 states of the U.S., those that allow the most personal and economic freedom are also the ones with the best long-term growth rates."

George Mason University is just a back door for libertarian Koch hacks to get a degree in shilling as a moll instead of burger-flipping http://exiledonli...rothers/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2011
A new study from the Mercatus Center on the campus of Virginias George Mason University confirms that among the 50 states of the U.S., those that allow the most personal and economic freedom are also the ones with the best long-term growth rates."

George Mason University is just a back door for libertarian Koch hacks to get a degree in shilling as a moll instead of burger-flipping http://exiledonli...rothers/

Why don't you defend your statist/socialist POVs?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2011
"an important global coalition of labor unions has refused to support Rogers' anti-Coke crusade, which seeks reparations for the families of victims. "We have no evidence of complicity by Coke in the killing of workers," says Ron Oswald, general secretary of the International Union of Foodworkers in Geneva, whose members include tens of thousands of Coke workers worldwide. Some government and union leaders believe that the militant union leading the crusade, SINALTRAINAL, a Colombian union of food-industry workers known for its socialist views, has zeroed in on Coke as a way to get the broader issue of union violence heard around the world. "Out of one killing they built up a campaign," says Colombian Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón. "In the end they're hurting Colombia" by making it seem like a dangerous place to do business."
http://www.busine...8074.htm
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2011
"The court determined a
bottlers agreement, which gave Coca-Cola USA the right to enforce standards
necessary to protect Coca-Colas product in the marketplace, including the use of
the trademark, packaging, and quality control, did not give Coca-Cola USA the
total control over day-to-day activities that Plaintiffs alleged. It concluded the
Coca-Cola Defendants therefore did not have the requisite control to be liable for
7
the actions of Bebidas or its employees.6"
http://www.ca11.u...5851.pdf
Telekinetic
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2011
"Out of one killing they built up a campaign," says Colombian Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón. "In the end they're hurting Colombia" by making it seem like a dangerous place to do business."
That's your rebuttal, the Colombian Vice-President admitting that a worker was killed? And that making an issue of it "in the end" hurts business. MURDER hurts the MURDERED. You're an apologist for killers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (16) Aug 21, 2011
"Out of one killing they built up a campaign," says Colombian Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón. "In the end they're hurting Colombia" by making it seem like a dangerous place to do business."
That's your rebuttal, the Colombian Vice-President admitting that a worker was killed? And that making an issue of it "in the end" hurts business. MURDER hurts the MURDERED. You're an apologist for killers.
Yeah but then unions are controlled by the Mob who murder and extort people all the time so -?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (17) Aug 21, 2011
Religionist overpopulation in Egypt and the loss of complacency:

"Bedouin trial leaders said the cross-border attack on Israel that killed eight people had included Bedouins as well as Palestinians.

"Marginalized and impoverished at the expense of Egyptians from the Nile Valley who have colonized the choice lands and tourist sites, the Sinai Bedouin have steadily returned to their ancient pastime of smuggling. Their strained relations with Egypts central government, now in the hands of the interim Supreme Military Council, have surfaced in the past months as armed bands blow up the Egypt-Israel gas pipeline five times in as many months and an attack Egyptian police headquarters in July."

-The result of religion-mandated explosive population overgrowth is always war. This is also the Solution to it. Obviously. No other solution exists to present conditions throughout the Arab world, than war, and this is exactly what we are seeing.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (15) Aug 21, 2011
Violence DOES hurt business, but it does not hurt govt power.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (17) Aug 21, 2011
The Questions to ask are; can these conditions be anticipated well in advance? Of course. Can the extreme danger to critical infrastructure also be anticipated? Certainly. And can Measures be taken to Control war so that critical infrastructure is not endangered? Absolutely.

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object"
-Balfour Declaration 1917

The establishment of the Zionist garrison state, and the division of existing nationalist entities among artificial countries throughout the middle east, in order to Manage inevitable conflict, was PLANNED long before the dissolution of the ottoman empire.

We might also suspect that the Zionist movement itself was concocted gens in advance for the express Purpose of founding the western bridgehead, Israel, in the midst of inevitable Moslem turmoil.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (16) Aug 21, 2011
Jewish nationalism did not exist before the mid-1800s. The Jews did not consider themselves as one people, nor did they have the mogen David as their symbol. Zionism was founded about the same time as the other great nationalist identities; the German myth, the Russian and japanese empires, the italian state, and THE United States as opposed to 'these united states' as it was commonly referred to before the civil war.

The other great Operator of the 20th century, communism, was also founded at this time. As we can see, Plans for the Management of populations throughout the world based upon their inevitable overgrowth and the resulting conflict, were being laid. The great Land Grab in Africa was begun by these new powers to secure the resources needed for the coming conflagrations.

Afterward Empire emerged from the ashes, stronger and more consolidated than ever, in firm control of the entire world. East and West. Two sides - One Coin. The Enemy of Leaders has always been the people.
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2011
@Meshuggeneh1923
"In 1916, things looked bleak for Britain, as German artillery was taking a heavy toll on Britains soldiers. A brilliant Jewish man, Chaim Weizmann, invented a formula to rapidly product TNT which helped the British win the war. Prime Minister David Lloyd George asked Weizmann what he wanted. He requested a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. On November 2, 1917, the Balfour Declaration was drawn up by Arthur J. Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary. In 1917, General Allenby, who was a Christian, entered Jerusalem and took control of Palestine from Turkey. The control of the holy land went from a mostly Muslim nation to a mostly Christian nation in one day."
Instead of making it up, read your history. Self-hating Jews are a danger to themselves and others, given the rise of anti-Jewish sentiment in the present day world.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (17) Aug 21, 2011
And whos jewish you putz? Self-hating humans who fear the truth are much more dangerous.

Israel was CREATED to serve a Purpose. Its existance in its present state is VITAL to the future of civilization. You honestly believe that such Conditions could have been created because some PM thought it would be nice if he did some chemist a FAVOR?? Are you THAT freeking naive??

Hey did you hear the one about how the grand canyon was dug by paul bunyan and his blue ox babe ruth, to keep illegals out of the US?

Hey did you hear the one about how ww1 was caused by some archduke getting shot in serbia? The Reality of that was that the Powers had been Prepping and Priming Europe for that war for decades with secret treaties and army building.

The war was Conceived, Choreographed, Directed, and Managed from start to premature finish. Because it was absolutely and unavoidably Inevitable given the religious cultures existant at the time and the effects of industrialization on population growth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (18) Aug 21, 2011
And whos jewish you putz?
Answer: we are ALL jewish.

"There is a strong tradition that the British royal line is the continuation of the throne of King David of the ancient "United Kingdom" of Israel and Judah."

http://www.johnpr...one.html

In reading the bible with a critical eye you might notice that the people of israel were constantly being used by their priests, the kohannin, and their levite attendants, to establish Order in the midst of chaos.

They were given the promise of freedom by the egyptian aristocrat Moses in return for Service. Instead of freedom they were kept in strict conformance to the Law. Anyone who chose to gain freedom was culled.

They were sent to slaughter their way throughout the levant. And when they had established gods kingdom, it was divided and one half set against the other.

Slaves freed to fight someone elses battles. And after Order was established they were again enslaved by assyrians and babylonians.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (17) Aug 21, 2011
The story of Israel, the story of the Domestication of humanity. A Story which in reality is only an elaborate and brilliant allegory for the state of the people throughout history, at the mercy of Leaders who early on concluded that the Only Way to rule was to divide the people and set them against one another in orderly and constructive Ways.

This was the only way to prevent the degeneration of society caused by overpopulation. The people would ALWAYS blame whatever Authority was in control for their misery, no matter how benevolent or egalitarian it would try to be. Increasing unrest always led to further restriction of freedoms and decline of Order, resulting in revolt and collapse.

Pragmatic and desperate Leaders joined together to resolve their mutual Problems; their tribes were pitted against one another in constructive ways. The resultant culture was resilient and strong. it could resist incursion. It could endure. An EMPIRE could emerge.

And it rules the world today.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (17) Aug 21, 2011
Dr Shlomo Sand, historian from Tel Aviv U, explains the artifice of jewish nationalism. This is not MY idea.
http://www.youtub...vANgw9Mk

-And certainly not his exclusively. Worth watching the entire thing, despite bad camera work.
finitesolutions
1 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2011
Who is starting and stopping the money printing machine?
This is who controls most of things.
kochevnik
3.1 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2011
Why don't you defend your statist/socialist POVs?

Debates require counterarguments, while you have provided none.
Telekinetic
2 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2011
"And whos jewish you putz? Self-hating humans who fear the truth are much more dangerous."- Meshuggeneh1923
"Yes, I hate all of humanity too, including myself. But I love all of my cats."- Meshuggeneh1923
Your personal frustrations color everything you say, making your arguments worthless. If you weren't so obnoxious, I'd feel sorry for you- but now I just think you're a schmuck.
ECOnservative
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2011
And who did they think controlled the money, the tooth fairy? Pseudo Science at its best.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2011
But if Corporations don't control the American people... Who will?
ForestofPeace
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2011
Invest in our Childrens Future!
Thus, the diversity of knowledge remains Forest of Peace has come up with something let that ITECT and you all can be there!
ForestofPeace
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2011
Interesting report, with more interresting or comments!

Thus, the diversity of knowledge remains Forest of Peace has come up with something let that Invest in our Childrens Future and you all can be there!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2011
@telepathetic
"Yes, I hate all of humanity too, including myself. But I love all of my cats."- Meshuggeneh1923"

-Uh that was sarcasm? Lack of Sinn für Humor is an indication of a shallow personality. So sorry for your lack.

-If you have specific issues in regard to my historicism I would be happy to elucidate.
Arkaleus
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2011
The reason why power factions control is because they cooperate with one another instead of distracting themselves with petty power plays. This was the key to power they re-learned in the 20th century.

If you compare the behavior of the participants in this thread to the order of the controlling factions, you will see we lack the singularity, solidarity and shared concept of totality that gives the masters strength.

The problem for us isn't that we're unintelligent, it's that we're too distracted and petty to share a common vision and will. Normally our leaders and religions would provide this conceptual core, but our "leaders" and "religions" today are predatory and pathologically deformed.

Our Internet is our greatest asset against these predators; it gives our minds the ability to conceive the totality of human activity. It also gives us the ability to communicate to each other and form the indomitable conceptual core we lack.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2011
@arkalayme
The reason why power factions control is because they cooperate with one another instead of distracting themselves with petty power plays. This was the key to power they re-learned in the 20th century.
Uh I believe this is what I have been saying, in so many better words.
If you compare the behavior of the participants in this thread to the order of the controlling factions, you will see we lack the singularity, solidarity and shared concept of totality that gives the masters strength.
Uh who is 'we'? Your gang of mutual upraters perhaps? Your homies? Your posse?? 8)
Otto_the_Magnificent
4 / 5 (12) Aug 22, 2011
The ability of people to prevent abuses and preserve rational self-government hinges on our ability to understand great powers, their relationships, and assemble the totality of its construct in our minds.
?

Sadly, the ability to do so is strongly discouraged and even purposely disrupted by those hiding within it as anonymity grants them security and keeps the governed impotent.
??
Uh who is 'we'? Your gang of mutual upraters perhaps? Your homies? Your posse?? 8)
Maybe its only a constructed totality within his mind. Wonder if he thought of that?

-He used the phrase 'Founding Fathers'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2011
-He used the phrase 'Founding Fathers'.
Yeah I saw. He likes to use 'we' a lot doesnt he? 'Mighty Morphen Power Rangers' -? Team 5/5?

Lessee, something topical...
The reason why power factions control is because they cooperate with one another instead of distracting themselves with petty power plays.
'Power factions' the paranoid buzzphrase does not equate to the possibility of People working behind (or above, way above) the scenes in order to ensure that humanity doesnt destroy itself, does it? No, it does not.
This was the key to power they re-learned in the 20th century.
They have obviously been at it for far longer than that. Big business competes the way monarchies used to. Unfairly.

Paranoia is not a very good moderator of judgement. There are People in this world who know far better how to run it than we do. Thank god for that.

They get paid very well for what They do. Is that what bothers Arkaleus? Theyre better at making life work than he is maybe?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2011
Missing from the network, are government entities that control significant assets of listed entities

Who but the govt can legally create money?
Govts aggressively protect that monopoly, but the study does not address this issue.
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2011
Who but the govt can legally create money?
Govts aggressively protect that monopoly, but the study does not address this issue.

Governments don't create money. They deferred that right to central banks owned/controlled via shell companies by the Vatican Rothschilds bankers and the Rothschild/Morgan/Warburg/Schiff bankster syndicate. The sole three governments that create their own sovereign currency are war targets of the US government, namely N. Korea, Iran and Libya. Coincidence? http://www.youtub...DzEqdvb0
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2011
Govts are in control of the banks in the USA. The govt appionts the chairman of the Federal Reserve and through FDIC regulates banks.
Govts DO have the responsibility for their money supply, which is why inflation is so common.
Gawad
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2011
Marjon, VD asked you two pointed question about two dozen times and you have yet to answer them. WHY? Is it because you can't mesh them together with your ideology (Libertarianism) and your personally expressed beliefs? Here they are again...

---
So you would agree then that children have the same rights as adults. They are part of your "all" category aren't they? Or are rights not universal for all people in contradiction of your Randite ideology?

I take it that you believe - as do all other Libertarian/Randites that laws against drug use, prostitution and so called "victim-less" crimes are also illegitimate and should be abolished?
---

Some of us still continue to await your answer.
Gawad
3 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2011
A project for you Marjon:

http://news.yahoo...896.html

An interesting social experiment. I can't wait to see the results.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2011
Govts are in control of the banks in the USA. The govt appionts the chairman of the Federal Reserve and through FDIC regulates banks.
Govts DO have the responsibility for their money supply, which is why inflation is so common.

In reality presidents that take on central banks and issue sovereign currency, not created out of debt, tend to die shortly thereafter. Kennedy was to issue silver certificates the day after he was murdered. More recently Rep. Giffords was shot by a member of her synagogue after instigated a FED audit. As for selecting the FED chairman, you forget that the FED is a private bank, no more federal than Federal Express. The president has no authority to say anything about the FED, or other private companies, other than what ceremonial positions the banksters will entertain to fool gullible people as yourself.

I would like to see where you found the FDIC regulating the Rothschilds. It is rather the reverse, I suspect.
Arkaleus
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2011
There really isn't any reason to abuse others here, it just sounds like unmedicated sociopathy and reads like the vandalism of psychotic minds.

Rather than use the power of language to insult and blockade our neighbors, we should listen, teach, and share data. Our senses are multiplied by our technology and our networks allow us to grow more aware than any tyrannical combination.

The power factions are powerful but untalented and deranged, this is why the outcome of their concentrated power results in systemic collapse rather than the impossible global "empire" the madmen clamor for.

Their dynastic offspring are even more degenerate, inheriting vast powers without the ability to care for life, delivering themselves and their dominions to the inevitable outcome of entropic self-annihilation.

The power factions are evil-natured, and can't complete the social equation of balanced and healthy life; therefore the natural forces of the universe will utterly destroy them.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (19) Aug 22, 2011
Rather than use the power of language to insult and blockade our neighbors, we should listen
Ya know, I do try to listen, but I keep hearing stuff like this:
The power factions are powerful but untalented and deranged
Untalented. If we're talking about the same sorts of people, those who assume the heights usually began by excelling at the best ivy league universities. They then went on to climb through the ranks of business or politics using their skill and ingenuity to best their peers.

Additionally these People have a unique ability to select teams of consultants and workers who themselves are among the most accomplished in their professions. They spend the greater part of their lives finding ways of using conditions to their best advantage.

They are also in competition with others who are busy doing the same thing.

And you, arkaleus, really think you have sufficient acumen to understand the constructs they devise? Decades and teams and billions?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (18) Aug 22, 2011
Experts are still trying to figure out how bernie madoff did what he did. He had the entire SEC fooled.
Their dynastic offspring are even more degenerate, inheriting vast powers without the ability to care for life, delivering themselves and their dominions to the inevitable outcome of entropic self-annihilation.
Says the fractured poet. Flowery prose does not confer added meaning, you realize that dont you? It just makes you appear superficial. 'Entropic self-annihilation'.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2011
THE ANSWER:
"In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all
liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the
organized combination of the individuals right to self defense; if
law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression
and plunderis it likely that we citizens would then argue much
about the extent of the franchise?"
http://www.fee.or..._Law.pdf
I am certain VD won't understand.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2011
I am sure 'wad understands this:

"It is easy to understand
why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying
degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence
by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property
by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes
the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds."
http://www.fee.or..._Law.pdf
This is what he and his fellow socialists support.
sven8
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2011
@TheGostofOtto1923 I can see your urge to 'explain'. Interesting, you are not the only one these days on different 'forums' trying to 'transfer the message'. However, when things go deeper comments like yours tend to disappear. Please leave fairy tales about Ivy leagu stuff away, it is 'known' where 'the real education' is obtained and who 'can' and who 'can not' enter there. Anyway, to cut the irrelevancies, you mentioned 'measures', right? Shall we talk about the Measurer himself, then? Or you want to continue with gratification of Israel, irrelevancy of personal freedom, necessity of depopulation etc.
Gawad
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2011
THE ANSWER:
[Bastiat quote omitted]
You "answer" only with a quote in the form of a rethorical question, Marjon. (If you point is that VD's question was rethorical itself, you could just say so, though I don't think that was the case anyway.)

You're quote leads one to conclude that you believe the law to be out of scope. No surprise there. But that doesn't answer the question of whether you believe "children have the same rights as adults." The question of the scope of the law is of a different order. You are skirting the issue, as usual.

Your 2nd quote would indicate that you believe all law should be abolished (not just laws against victimless crimes). Is that so? That at least would be consistent with that fact that you advocate the law of the jungle, along with the legitimacy of have any kind and number of weapons and even private armies.

Come on Marjon, tell us what YOU really think, or is that simply too much to ask of any politician?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Aug 23, 2011
@TheGostofOtto1923 I can see your urge to 'explain'. Interesting, you are not the only one these days on different 'forums' trying to 'transfer the message'. However, when things go deeper comments like yours tend to disappear. Please leave fairy tales about Ivy leagu stuff away, it is 'known' where 'the real education' is obtained and who 'can' and who 'can not' enter there. Anyway, to cut the irrelevancies, you mentioned 'measures', right? Shall we talk about the Measurer himself, then? Or you want to continue with gratification of Israel, irrelevancy of personal freedom, necessity of depopulation etc.
'Dear' 'Noob'

I infer by your 'reference' to 'the Measurer' that you are a religionist? But I can glean little else from your 'post'. What is it exactly that you are trying to 'say'?

You do know that religions are going to destroy the world unless they are cast off don't you? ALL religions. Including yours.

None are safe. All the same. All must GO.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
So let me get this straight...

You advocate for the ownership of any kind and number of weapons

You advocate for private armies (which sort of follows from the above)

You advocate the personal printing/minting of currency

And you advocate the abolishment of the law.

So basically you're simply for the "law of the jungle", everyman for himself, keep your powder dry sort of thing. Basically an iteration of a 'militia movement' guy. No law, so no legal protections for anybody. (And this in fact is why, to you, VD's questions WOULDN'T EVEN APPLY, correct?)

You have in the past argued feverishly for rights being God given, so you also believe in 'natural rights', just that it's up to you to defend them any damn way you can and want?

And so, to you, anyone who doesn't agree with this radical, ultra individualistic view is a "socialist" because, well, they believe in some kind of social cohesion?

And FreeThinking, dogbert, Neumenon, and Arkaleus...you AGREE with this view???
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Aug 23, 2011
So basically you're simply for the "law of the jungle", everyman for himself, keep your powder dry sort of thing. Basically an iteration of a 'militia movement' guy. No law, so no legal protections for anybody.
Naw only legal protection for Somali fishermen so they wouldn't have to become marines and pirates. Makes sense to me.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 23, 2011
And you advocate the abolishment of the law.

I knew you would not understand.
I, like Bastiat, advocate for the end of legal plunder, aka socialism.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
And you advocate the abolishment of the law.

I knew you would not understand.
I, like Bastiat, advocate for the end of legal plunder, aka socialism.

Well, thanks for clearing that up. It would help a lot if you were less cryptic. Bastiat's quote can easily be taken in a wider sense than only applying to "legal plunder", i.e. taxes.

I also took your reply in the context of VD's QUESTIONS. If abolishment of laws concerning "legal plunder" is all you were referring to THEN YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS. (Unless what you meant was that adults, like children, shouldn't pay taxes :)
Arkaleus
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 23, 2011
@Gawad

No rational person who values human life advocates any of the things you have listed, except maybe the private creation of "real" currency. I don't consider it virtuous to hoard weapons, raise private armies, or abolish social order or limited laws established by the consent of the people governed by them.

The organizations described by this article are doing many of these things themselves, being superior to national governments by forming their own supra-national government.

They do not abide by any law except their will, do indeed "print" their own worthless debt-based "currency" and manipulate the rest. They use the militaries of national governments they have enthralled as their private mercenaries, exclusively in recent times to dominate the remaining independent minor nations that contain key resources and insure corrupt institutional organs displace any free domestic authority that remains.

They aren't a real "empire", they're more like parasitic thieves.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2011
No rational person who values human life advocates any of the things you have listed, except maybe the private creation of "real" currency.
Ok, thanks for clarifying your views, but please note: while you say 'No rational person who values human life advocates any of the things you have listed' I'll point ou that I DID NOT pull that stuff out of thin air: Marjon (a.k.a Rygg), above, only clarified that he does not advocate abolishment of all law, only tax law. HE DID NOT "correct" any of the other items listed, unsurprisingly, because he has explicitly advocated them in the past (believe me, I couldn't have come up with this stuff on my own! I have enough imagination to deal with some QM, but stuff like that is outside of my zone!)

As to the The organizations described by this article, esp. international oil and others of that scope, I agree with several of your points, however it is also worth noting that Marjon's Randian philosophy completely backs their behaviour.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2011
Quoth myself:
it is also worth noting that Marjon's Randian philosophy completely backs their behaviour.


As a case in point, one of the items I should also have listed was:

You advocate a completely unregulated market.

To make this clear, this, to Marjon means a market completely free of government regulations. Marjon believes markets are completely self-regulating/self-correcting.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2011
a completely unregulated market.

There is no such thing.
A market, by definition, is regulated by the participants in the market.
markets are completely self-regulating/self-correcting

It's not what I believe, it is what has been demonstrated to be true.
Distortions occur when one market participant choose to use violence to coerce others. Of course then the market is no longer free.
Such as when govt regulations coerce mortgage companies to loan money to unqualified borrowers. Or when govt minimum wage coercion drives up unemployment and forces business to close.
Gawad
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2011
It's not what I believe, it is what has been demonstrated to be true.
To an EXTENT, markets are self-regulating/self-correcting. What has "been demonstrated to be true" is that markets are only meta-stable. Given time free markets (free of government/legal regulations) can develop imbalances as a result of human foibles, and given time those imbalances may (and *usually* will) self-correct. However, properly legally regulated markets are less prone to severe imbalances and recover more quickly. Legal regulations aren't imposed just because some folks are control freaks, it's to help curb market excesses that can cause untold damage.

The private and public sectors share one important quality: they are both run by human beings and neither one has a monopoly on angels or demons. Each is vulnerable to human failings. To put all of one's trust in the market is just as foolish as putting it all in the hands of government; the recent near financial collapse has roots in both camps.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2011
and given time those imbalances may (and *usually* will) self-correct.

So you were lying before?
Legal regulations aren't imposed just because some folks are control freaks

Yes, they are, and to benefit some big corporations.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2011
To put all of one's trust in the market is just as foolish as putting it all in the hands of government; the recent near financial collapse has roots in both camps.

Only the govt has been granted the 'right' to use coercive force. It is the govt that must bear the responsibility for its acts of commission and omission.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2011
wad: "when has a government agency ever tried to dictate where a company makes its products? I cant ever remember it happening. Neither can Boeing, which is fighting the complaint."
"That is what is so jarring about this case and not just for Boeing. Without any warning, the rules have changed. Uncertainty has replaced certainty. Other companies have to start wondering what other rules could soon change. It becomes a reason to hold back on hiring. "
http://www.nytime...ex.jsonp
Who has the power here?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (17) Aug 23, 2011
I knew you would not understand.
I, like Bastiat, advocate for the end of legal plunder, aka socialism.
OK so in thinking this through... Somali pirate marines who plunder are legal, but socialists? I'm confused.
They do not abide by any law except their will,
Thats something else you might want to talk to bernie madoff about.

Seriously, you remind me of this lady:
http://www.youtub...UAV7ZiVc

-flowery.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2011
Auto, what's worse, legal or illegal plunder?
At least the Somali pirates are honest criminals. They don't hide behind the law.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 23, 2011
Auto, what's worse, legal or illegal plunder?
At least the Somali pirates are honest criminals. They don't hide behind the law.
All criminals are honest from their own perspective. All crime is relative. All crimes are legal in one venue or another.

Ask me a hard question.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2011
All crime is relative.

That's a nice 'progressive' POV.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
So you were lying before?
Before what and how so? You're the one who does most of the lying around here, you know that. Hell, only politicians and ASPDs are known to display your level of mendacity.

Legal regulations aren't imposed just because some folks are control freaks


Yes, they are, and to benefit some big corporations.
No, they are not, not most of the time, at least not in my neck of the woods. I know US pols are more easily bought and sold than their Canadian counterparts, but, seriously Marj, you really think all legal market regulations are created just to fulfill the deep seated control freak urges of politicians for the benefit of big corporations? You have a seriously distorted view of reality. (O.k., not big news, I know, but it still manages to surprise me.)
Telekinetic
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2011
In prepared remarks before the House of Representatives, Greenspan, 82, who retired in 2006, called the financial crisis a "once-in-a-century credit tsunami" and said it had "turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined".

He suggested his trust in the responsibility of banks had been misplaced: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

I hope Allen Greenspan is enough of an expert with the qualifications of years of proper education and experience, Ghost, to demonstrate the humbling reality that even they, the geniuses that you play sycophant to, can fail spectacularly.

@Gawad:
"they are both run by human beings and neither one has a monopoly on angels or demons. Each is vulnerable to human failings. To put all of one's trust in the market is just as foolish as putting it all in the hands of government..."
Precisely.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 23, 2011
All crime is relative.

That's a nice 'progressive' POV.
Name one that's not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (17) Aug 23, 2011
Ghost, to demonstrate the humbling reality that even they, the geniuses that you play sycophant to, can fail spectacularly.
Oh you're talking to me? Sorry I wasn't listening. Lessee... fail spectacularly...
The Benefits of major Events are often only fully realized decades or generations afterward. I like to use Vietnam as an obvious example.

Due to the combined efforts of the french, the Americans, and finally the communists, the obsolete religionist cultures extant in the region were destroyed. Today Vietnam is a stable and productive member of the world community. This is Victory by any measure.

But in the decades following the US withdrawal, our actions were seen as a huge mistake. Importantly, govts were complicit in bolstering this misconception, which lent credence to all the students and liberals who were shamelessly used as an excuse to leave at the Proper Time.

Economic downturns are often concocted when significant changes are necessary. More misdirection.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 23, 2011
Sychophant.. Sykophant.. Sycophant - ah, here we go: 'Obsequious flattery'... Obcequius, abcequious... Ah fergit it.

You know it always cracks me up when you guys are so eager to fear the rich and famous and yet are so EAGER to believe the tripe They're willing to feed you when it fits your feel-good theories of the world.

We didn't lose Vietnam. We aren't fighting a war on drugs. All that drug money has been put to very good use over the years, like funding efforts to shut down the southern border now that import quotas have been reached, in the Only Way possible - by ruthless force and terror from the Mexican side.

The housing bubble was predicted for YEARS. Someone devised a very clever way of repackaging it and making it an international problem, thereby enabling it to be Timed and also Used as a powerful Tool for, among other things, destroying individual euro economies and making the need for a stronger EU mandatory.

The entire world is being consolidated. This costs money.
Telekinetic
2 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2011
If the unspeakable human misery of the Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotion people, being burned alive by napalm, bombed and slaughtered by U.S forces is your idea of an eventual positive outcome that needed to happen because it cleared them of religion makes you the most disgusting pig yet to spew on this forum. People are still dying from unexploded ordnance left behind by the U.S. I'm beginning to see that you have a "religious" view of the grander purpose of events, like some kind of god of mayhem produces productive order after the initial destruction and that true believers will see the purpose of this suffering eventually. The people who lost their life savings , I suppose, according to your gospel. will appreciate their homelessness and sudden destitution one day as well. You're a preacher of fire and brimstone, only you ask your flock to embrace it as their salvation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 23, 2011
If the unspeakable human misery of the Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotion people, being burned alive by napalm, bombed and slaughtered
War is hell.
by U.S forces is your idea of an eventual positive outcome that needed to happen because it cleared blahblah
It's obvious that you fail to appreciate how unrestricted population growth has ALWAYS made war INEVITABLE. Religions exacerbate this for their own built-in aggressive ends.

When war is INEVITABLE no matter what is done to prevent it, then it becomes absolutely Essential that it be conducted as rationally and as reasonably as possible.

It's people like you who would ignore these facts and think that calm diplomacy would be enough to fill peoples bellies. It's delusionists like you who would let wars happen by themselves and threaten everything, all the work and effort and suffering that has brought humanity to pinnacle it occupies today.

This if anything could be considered a universal Crime. A crime against humanity.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2011
All crime is relative.

@ryggesogn2 That's a nice 'progressive' POV.
Are you outside of spacetime, like a black hole? For if not, I have to break it to you that things ARE indeed relative. That's why scientists use NUMBERS and study MATH.
@ryggesogn2 I knew you would not understand
I, like Bastiat, advocate for the end of legal plunder, aka socialism.
And neofeudalism combined with corporate welfare for the plutocrats, which you forgot to add. How does it feel to be a Zionist stooge, caught in the vortex made by Soros and the Koch brothers to trap useful idiots?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 23, 2011
Because of the concerted efforts of World Powers to destroy religionist cultures, since 1976 nearly 26 MILLION ABORTIONS have been able to take place in Vietnam.

People like you would rather have seen these children born, many to starve but most to grow old enough to die in battle the jungles, fighting for some religionist/nationalist ideal or another. This endless Cycle has been Ended in the only way possible. This too is Victory.

Vietnamese parents will never again have to fear sending their children off to war, unless some religion such as Islam gains a hold.

Wars are obviously Planned to achieve a predetermined Result, which is not usually what we are led to believe it is. For obvious Reasons. This is called Strategic Initiative. Look it up.
hush1
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2011
The louder you voice our SI, the more we will encourage you. Your the man, Otto. Our man. Well done.
We have two sets of laws, Otto. One for adolescents and one for grown ups. As you well may know it's only paper. The paths of shots fired? Targets are soo pointless. You know the projectiles are going to hit something. We don't discriminate.
You already have a premonition of our world after religion.
We did promise you one promise - not to make any promise at all.
We kept our word. March onward, Otto.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2011
koch, why did you raise specter of Koch brothers and ignore Soros, until I raise the issue?
And what does Zionism have to do with anything?
Socialists are no different than the corporations that want to control the state. In the end, who controls the state is less important than the power the state has to control your property, which includes your life.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 24, 2011
Religionists fight wars in order to end them. Because they all want to conquer the world you see. For the good of humanity.

Empire fights wars in order to end them. Because it has to conquer the world you see. For the good of humanity. And it is gradually winning.

So many people, so little time.
sven8
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2011
TheGostofOtto1923, I see we are not referring to the same Measurer. You do not have a clue what I told you, don't you, conveniently or surprisingly. Anyway, you might hope that 'things' will go the way you told, but you know it will not. Numbers, numbers... Regardless of how much you would like to 'explain'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 24, 2011
TheGostofOtto1923, I see we are not referring to the same Measurer. You do not have a clue what I told you, don't you
Uh, no?
conveniently or surprisingly.
-Or incoherently. Why not drop the riddlespeak?
Anyway, you might hope that 'things' will go the way you told, but you know it will not.
They have, and They are, and They will. Thats the Plan.
Numbers, numbers... Regardless of how much you would like to 'explain'.
You are timid and afraid that if you were to speak plainly your message would lack depth. Yes? No? Yes I think.
Gawad
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2011
TheGostofOtto1923, I see we are not referring to the same Measurer. You do not have a clue what I told you, don't you, conveniently or surprisingly. Anyway, you might hope that 'things' will go the way you told, but you know it will not. Numbers, numbers... Regardless of how much you would like to 'explain'.


Silly Otto! Wasn't it BLEEDINGLY OBVIOUS that sven8 was referring to the guy responsible for IPK in the vault at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sèvres, France? DOH!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 24, 2011
TheGostofOtto1923, I see we are not referring to the same Measurer. You do not have a clue what I told you, don't you, conveniently or surprisingly. Anyway, you might hope that 'things' will go the way you told, but you know it will not. Numbers, numbers... Regardless of how much you would like to 'explain'.


Silly Otto! Wasn't it BLEEDINGLY OBVIOUS that sven8 was referring to the guy responsible for IPK in the vault at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Svres, France? DOH!
Oh right. France. My mistake. Une petite faux pax.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 24, 2011
You already have a premonition of our world after religion.
We did promise you one promise - not to make any promise at all.
We kept our word. March onward, Otto.
Wait - this reminds me of something. The poet is a lyricist.
http://www.youtub...f_hLPn18
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (16) Aug 24, 2011
Ptui. That woman is lipsyncing.
makes you the most disgusting pig yet to spew on this forum.
Danke sehr fellow stinking Swinehund.
People are still dying from unexploded ordnance
And yet they are not dying in still yet more wars from ordinance actually being dropped on their heads, or simply starving to death. This is an improvement.
I'm beginning to see that you have a "religious" view...like some kind of god of mayhem produces productive order after the initial destruction and that true believers will see the purpose of this suffering eventually.
Naw thats not it.
The people who lost their life savings , I suppose, according to your gospel. will appreciate their homelessness and sudden destitution...
You mean like poor otto himself? 'Rock ist weg Stock ist weg Augustine liegt im Dreck.'

Win some lose some. My descendents at least have a chance at a future.

Otto DOES have a religion. These guys SPIT when they sing.
http://www.youtub...f_hLPn18
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (16) Aug 24, 2011
Oh I see I dropped a punchline. What hushh said reminds me of THIS magnificent pretension.
http://www.youtub...PWINVVEw
sven8
not rated yet Aug 24, 2011
Ghost, if you say so...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2011
Corporations are only as powerful as the governments they operate under. Governments have a legal monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. Ultimately if you want to blame anyone for concentrations of power you must look to the ultimate cause of the problem. Like a microcosm, ultimately "the problem isn't the problem"...
Ethelred
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2011
Sven if you can't make yourself just a tad more clear why the hell did you bother to post in first place?

Once again,please explain what you meant by the Measurer. I suspect that you did not mean Julia Childs. Otto made a VERY reasonable guess and instead of clearing things up you acted as if everyone should know by extra-sensory perception.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2011
Corporations are only as powerful as the governments they operate under.
Gee your first post in over a month and you blow it.

That may have been true at one time but now many corporations have gone multinational and thus can evade the regulation of any one nation. Plus, if think it about it for just a moment, some of the most powerful corporations where Swiss and Dutch and those are not powerful countries.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2011
Corporations are only as powerful as the governments they operate under.
Gee your first post in over a month and you blow it.

That may have been true at one time but now many corporations have gone multinational and thus can evade the regulation of any one nation. Plus, if think it about it for just a moment, some of the most powerful corporations where Swiss and Dutch and those are not powerful countries.

Ethelred


So this is what anarchy looks like...well it's not great but it's not the wild wild west you leftists have made it out to be after all. Is it?

Either governments which actually have teeth are necessary to keep good order and discipline in economical and political spheres or they're not and we don't have them like you just said. Now you can't have your cake and eat it too Eth...which is it?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2011
Another rather more specific logical idiosyncrasy in your argument...

Plus, if think it about it for just a moment, some of the most powerful corporations where Swiss and Dutch and those are not powerful countries.


Which doesn't help your point at all. Ever heard of war? If the most powerful corporations were in America you'd at least have some logical consistency.
Ethelred
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2011
Apparently, as usual, you failed to get the point. You made a post. It was wrong.

There was nothing leftist in my post nor in any of my posts UNLESS you think leftist is to the left of Ann Rand or the Cato Asylum. If you consider that some sort of 'leftist' delusion then there is no reality in your thinking.

If you want to show a logical inconsistency in my posts you have to

Find this fantasy you think is there
Deal with something I actually said

And not just make up shit that wasn't there.

So that is another erroneous post for you. And you were stupid enough to give me a one for pointing the error of your first post even though you were unable to actually find anything wrong in it.

You know I do reply to stupidity in kind. True you can't fall much farther but it is still stupid to pick a fight like that. I did not give you a one. Till NOW.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2011
The problem with the ratings system is that "Ethelreds" can do drive-by's and rate 1's without any explanation nor supply any counter argument, then one feels compelled to return a one without any other reason than having received one. Also, since the posters on this site are predominately young and liberal or old sad and liberal, guys like me get hosed with ones if I post any counter arguments at all irrespective of logic used. PhysOrg should just do away with post ratings. IMO.
Ethelred
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2011
The problem with the ratings system is that "Ethelreds" can do drive-by's and rate 1's without any explanation
You seem to talking about yourself. You did exactly that on another thread and you are doing it on this thread. You want a ranking war? Again?

without any explanation
Unlike what you did last week I did explain what I did.

then one feels compelled to return a one without any other reason than having received one.
Which is what I had to do to you since you didn't explain your behavior. I even asked what the hell you were doing and you gave that a one. For asking why you were giving ones.>>
Ethelred
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2011
Also, since the posters on this site are predominately young and liberal or old sad and liberal,
Speaking of sad what the hell is wrong with you these days. You have become rather sullen and childish rather unlike MM who varies a lot between quite rational and then out of control angry. You seem to have gone on a one note rampage of radical RightWingNutRetainerClip posts and then this sort of whining post when you find that your only support is from wackjobs like Marjon. You need to rethink things if you need Marjon to support you.

guys like me get hosed with ones if I post any counter arguments
I 'hosed' you with ones for doing it to me without even one single post in the previous thread. Now you gave me ones with a bogus whine about the well earned ones you got in return.

Of course you will also get ones for doing idiotic things like pretending that progressive = communist. Which is what I give Marjon and Antithinker ones for. They lie like that and earn the ones.>>
Gawad
1 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2011
Either governments which actually have teeth are necessary to keep good order and discipline in economical and political spheres or they're not and we don't have them like you just said. Now you can't have your cake and eat it too Eth...which is it?
Hey M_M, good to see you still around! Hope you were just on vacation. Anywho, excusez-moi de me foutre le nez dans le tas, mais I wouldn't want Noum to accuse me of being a drive by 1er...

Consider as an example, Shell, a nominally Dutch, multinational corporation. Now, the nature of the resource they exploit and where they often do so makes it more troublesome (but not at all impossible) for any government agency to closely monitor/inspect their operations, but for the Dutch government, which is relatively limited in terms of resources this is particularly problematic.

Now, consider what Shell did (by proxy if you wish) to your part of the Gulf of Mexico.

cont.
Ethelred
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2011
You are not required to lie like they do. Please stop this stupid behavior.

PhysOrg should just do away with post ratings. IMO.
Something I have said many times. That has got to bother the heck out you that you just agreed with something I have been saying for years.

So go ahead and start another war. In this case for giving MM ones AFTER he gave me ones. Idiotic thing to do but if you insist in starting a war I will return the favor. Just as I did last week.

Ethelred
hush1
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2011
@MM

Read up on the subject...THEN post about it...

There is virtually ZERO possibility of any radioactive material from these plants making it outside the containment vessel.

You heard it here first... March 14, 2011.


Let's hear from you first. Again.

Gawad
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2011
So, I think you engaged in a serious false dichotomy when you wrote what I quoted above.

What's the alternative to a gov. with no teeth? What would be the point of gov. at all then? Just having a toothless bunch of managers reduced to making suggestions? You'd end up with legislators, bureaucrats and ombudsmen with no way to enforce legislation, deter violations of the law or any ability to punish those who do violate it. Since you'd be even less effective than Greece at collecting taxes, pretty soon you wouldn't even those. In short order you would have anarchy, and if Marj has it his way Corporate Anarchism.

Gov. with teeth is necessary to keep good order and discipline in economical and political spheres, and the branches responsible for this have to be at arms length from the branches of gov that create the law. And the legislators have to be answerable to the people and to the law & order branches. Division of powers, M_M. If you guys have mucked it up that's another issue.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2011
The problem with the ratings system is that "Ethelreds" can do drive-by's and rate 1's without any explanation
You seem to talking about yourself. You did exactly that on another thread and you are doing it on this thread. You want a ranking war? Again?

without any explanation
Unlike what you did last week I did explain what I did.

then one feels compelled to return a one without any other reason than having received one.
Which is what I had to do to you since you didn't explain your behavior. I even asked what the hell you were doing and you gave that a one. For asking why you were giving ones.>>

Generally I'm not compelled to hand out one's unless I don't understand why I was given a one,... but in any case that was my point,.. the rating system doesn't work.
Gawad
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2011
Apologies,
What's the alternative to a gov. with no teeth?
Should have read
What's the alternative to a gov. with teeth?
Minor faux pas.
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2011
Generally I'm not compelled to hand out one's unless I don't understand why I was given a one,
You weren't even in the thread. Neither this one nor the one you started a ranking war in last week.

but in any case that was my point,.. the rating system doesn't work.
So you directed your angst at me instead of MM this time around? He is the one that gave ones first in this thread. And it was YOU that was giving ones without reasons, now and last week. Yet you attacked me as if it was I that did it. YOU did it.

Yes the system is broken. You helped break it.

It still has uses. I can often tell things about posters by looking at who and how they were ranked. If the timing of the ranking was kept you could even tell who was retaliating months later. As is no can tell that it was YOU that started the crap this time around. Nevertheless it was you and you are whining about the results of your own actions.

Ethelred
Noumenon
1 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2011
You think you were being defensive just as I did. We both participated in the non-sense and you know it. That is the point, there is no logic to the rating system. Rating a one is no replacement to a reasonable argued post.

[Though, I think rating a one makes more sense than then "pointless verbiage" mod non-sense we used to get]
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2011
You think you were being defensive just as I did.
You weren't in the thread.

We both participated in the non-sense and you know it.
Yes. I returned your behavior. You earned it.

That is the point, there is no logic to the rating system.
That is pure rationalization of your own behavior.

Rating a one is no replacement to a reasonable argued post.
So why did you do it? I usually don't except with people that already know why. Marjon knows exactly why. Oliver and the few others as well.

If you or MM or anyone else engages in crap like progressive-liberal-anythingbutaRightWingNut = Commie pinko nazi it is going to get a one from me and I am not going to waste time telling why except when it is convenient for me.

"pointless verbiage" mod non-sense we used to get]
At least one of the mods was incompetent. The rule enforcement is still spotty only they do it less often but they get the spammers more. Which is a large improvement.

Ethelred
hush1
1 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2011
The ranking filter I have is special. I put the filter on ten.
Where did you all go? lol
Noumenon
1 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2011
If you or MM or anyone else engages in crap like progressive-liberal-anythingbutaRightWingNut = Commie pinko nazi it is going to get a one from me and I am not going to waste time telling why except when it is convenient for me.


Where have I done that?

I don't see any negative ratings by you of Vendicar, yet his vitriolic irrational caricature of "evil right wingers" is off the charts stupid.

P.S. FrankHubris is the worst at drive-by one ratings.
Arkaleus
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2011
@ All my fellow gentle rationalists:

Please do not thread with the sociopaths that infest this forum. They loathe the exchange of knowledge, maniacally striving instead to crush and devour the happy spirit that arises between those seeking to understand their world.

Every sincere expression is a grace to our community. All should enjoy reading those who genuinely want to respect and learn from others, no matter their skill or literacy level.

We need an end to the constant stream of personal insults, psychopathic narcissism, and tantrum-tangents these vandals drag into our community. Our only defense is to bestow the benefit of isolation and silence to these disturbed souls.

We don't need to be corrected or insulted here; we know those who do this write only to attack others and destroy peace. They abuse the liberties granted to all to rail against those same liberties, disrupting the growth of our reason by pelting us with the rotten bits of their broken, tormented minds.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2011
What is a 'rationalist'?
What are you willing and capable of rationalizing and why?
ottogroupietroll
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2011
We need an end to the constant stream of personal insults, psychopathic narcissism, and tantrum-tangents these vandals drag into our community. Our only defense is to bestow the benefit of isolation and silence to these disturbed souls.
Yawn. So the oppression is on the other foot eh? Let us not forget how poor otto RIP PBUH was eviscerated by your nefarious little band of gangraters.
pelting us with the rotten bits of their broken, tormented minds.
You are off-topic AND your posts are excessively flowery and fruity.

This will not be tolerated.
our community
Pudel.
Ethelred
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2011
Where have I done that?
Don't know if you have. That was a conditional.

I don't see any negative ratings by you of Vendicar,
He has lots of ones from me. Lots of fives too because he alternates a lot.

P.S. FrankHubris is the worst at drive-by one ratings.
You seem to be in a ranking war with him.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (14) Aug 25, 2011
Aw now youve done it. Youve awakened the dead. Anybody got any Triazolam? Zolpidem? Ramelteon? A hammer?
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2011
Fair enough Eth, I did put some pretty big words in your mouth, but my point stands.

You can't have it both ways, either governments control corporations or it's the other way around. If the latter we have what's called Anarcho-Capitalism. Obviously we don't. What we do have is collusion though, I think that's pretty clear...well at least to me it is. Governments have ultimate power over the situation though. No matter how much money is given to special interests an elected official always has a choice in how they vote, and they can vote to squash any corporation in their jurisdiction out of existence.

Do we need government with teeth? Yes we do. Do we need them to lean on the people and legitimate business as much as they do? No we don't IMO. We're probably all going to disagree on what "legitimate business" is though. For instance I think prostitution, sale of illicit drugs,gambling (and many other things) are perfectly legitimate. A lot of people disagree with me :)
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2011
and they can vote to squash any corporation in their jurisdiction out of existence.

And they have.
Google learned from Microsoft's anti-trust attack by the govt to hire lobbyists.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2011
You can't have it both ways, either governments control corporations or it's the other way around.
No. Its not a two valued situation. Governments can be unable to fully control a corporation without being controlled by it. I am not trying to have both ways in a two way situation. I am trying to deal with things as they are or at least seem to be vs what I think might be better.

If the latter we have what's called Anarcho-Capitalism.
Which is something that can't last without turning into Monopoly Land. Or perhaps corporations hiring Hammer's Slammers to compete with each other. With the occasional Ninja attack on the Suits.>>
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2011
Govt has the guns.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2011
What we do have is collusion though,
Always have had it. John Hancock colluded with radicals to stop the Tea Tax because it was costing him. Teddy Roosevelt colluded with or at least asked the cooperation of J. P. Morgan at least once. At the moment our government seems to have been entirely too accommodating of corporate misuse of the law for a long time. We need a new TR. That ought to piss off the Radicals. A President that can work with business without being owned by business.

squash any corporation in their jurisdiction out of existence.
We still have laws. Its hard to quash a company that is within the laws and not bankrupt like GM was. It is also hard to control a multinational. To give two EXTREEEME examples of companies that no longer exist we can look at The Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company. Both were completely out of hand with private militaries. Nothing like them exists today but more subtle modern variants do.>>
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2011
Hmmm...

Like half the companies in that diagram had to be "bailed out" by the U.S. gov'ment that Rygg and shootist hates so much. The corporations owned the gov'ment, hid their money in off-shores accounts, and then raped the people.


@ethel honey

Teddy was the first trust buster.

Too big to fail = TOO BIG, and shouldn't exist. I, for one, welcome our new anti-trust efforts against Organizations whose Size alone makes their failure a political liability for the ruling party. GM should have been allowed to die, as well as the XXXL-Banks that several trillion$ have been loaned, or given to.

Under a free market, monopolies do not occur. But with the advent of gob'mint subsidies, which all should oppose, the balance is tilted.

Restore balance, re-elect No One.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2011
British Petroleum and for a long time Enron. If Microsoft and Apple were politically active they too would be bad news.

squash any corporation in their jurisdiction out of existence.
Fully agree. I think we have it on paper.

Do we need them to lean on the people and legitimate business
The key word there is 'legitimate'. The financial industry IS out of hand and has been for too long.

I think prostitution
Agreed. Besides it can't be regulated or taxed unless it is legal. California does this with the porn industry. Over the dead bodies of political hacks. Only they didn't die.

sale of illicit drugs
Depends on the drug. Angel dust is RIGHT OUT. That stuff is dangerous to the people around the users. Amphetamines are another that may not be safe to legalize.

gambling (and many other things) are perfectly legitimate
Well, maybe should be legal. I think so. I just don't think of it as 'legitimate' just something that is not going to go away.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2011
Under a free market monopolies do not occur.
Have you taking lessons from Marjon on economics because that is just plain wrong. We HAD a free market in the 1800's and we had monopolies, trusts, oligopolies and just plain secret agreements. Still have the latter.

Monopolies are inherent in a purely free market. Without antitrust there will be monopolies.

And don't bother replying Marjon. I am not interested in your lies.

Restore balance, re-elect No One.
That bit of head in the sand nonsense is why I gave you a one. Amateurs would be the result and they SUCK, at least in their first term in office. See the tea baggers for an example. Or the Gingrich crowd when Clinton was President. And the same would happen if the newbies were Democrats. Newbies are nearly as bad as corruption. Sometimes worse, as corrupt people know they won't get money if there is none to give.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (14) Aug 26, 2011
Too big to fail = TOO BIG, and shouldn't exist.
Question: does this include countries, 'empires', religions, and similar temporal sociopolitical constructs?

Answer: ?

BIG is only a matter of Perspective. Question: How BIG should these things be? Answer: As big as they need to be in order to get the Job done.

Question: Was the USSR too big to fail? Answer: Everybody thought so. And then it just went away. Funny that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 26, 2011
Under a free market, monopolies do not occur.
Sure they do. Didn't you ever see the Godfather? Michael created a monopoly on the day his nephew was christened. In the usual manner. The same way Romans did with the Sabines. They threw a party.

Either free markets or none, Deception Rules.
Bog_Mire
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2011
your life is just a discrete moment. all of this posturing over wealth is wasting precious time. let it go. get out and enjoy yourselves. let the fools squabble over "things" that have no meaning in our incredibly brief time. a good solid home filled with family that you love and love you. and maybe some hens and a dog(not in the house). and good friends who do not call on you just in times of need. pointless verbiage indeed. the best kind, IMHO.
Bog_Mire
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2011
oh, and a nice veg garden.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2011
We HAD a free market in the 1800's and we had monopolies,

Prove it.
One of the longest lived monopolies was ATT, which required support of the US govt to exist.
Some 'monopolies' may exist, for a time,when a company achieves significant market share because they provide the BEST products at the BEST price. {Usually what happens is that company rests on their laurels allowing competitors to take market share. That's what happened to Standard Oil.}
What happens then is their competitors whine to their politicians and DEMAND the govt step in to FORCE that company to become less competitive. That is exactly why large meat packers demanded FDA regulations to force their smaller competitors out of business. And this is why Clinton sued Mircrosoft, at the behest of Sun.
'Progressives' like Ethel can't understand what they can't control.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2011
The key word there is 'legitimate'. The financial industry IS out of hand and has been for too long.

The govt has a monopoly on money but you blame the industry not the govt that controls that industry.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2011
"Obama made the calls from his rented vacation farm house on the well-heeled resort island of Martha's Vineyard off Massachusetts, deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest said. "
http://www.breitb...rticle=1
"Warren Buffett makes $280m profit on Bank of America stake in just 24 hours"
http://www.telegr...urs.html
"Buffett to Host Obama Fundraiser in New York"
http://www.bloomb...-30.html
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2011
The problem is you're assuming companies are keeping the prices low for the public's good. The large companies drive down prices to put everyone else out of business, but once everyone else is already out of business, what's stopping the company from jacking the price back up again to unreasonable levels? The low prices are short term.

If they already control all of the supply, how can others start up companies to compete? Where will they get their supply if not from the monopoly? And then how can they make a profit if they too have to pay the high prices set by the monopoly? In this situation, there's no chance for the self regulating competition that you keep hoping for.

It has nothing to do with wanting to control companies. It has to preventing them from extorting the public in the very simple way I described above.

There's no reason other than having a conscience that prevents these kinds of business practices in a free market, and you sure as hell can't count on that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2011
The problem is you're assuming companies are keeping the prices low for the public's good.

No, I don't. Prices are kept down so they can sell more product and make more profit.
If they already control all of the supply

Who are 'they'?

China thought 'they' controlled all the rare earth elements. 'They' were wrong.

Standard Oil reduced the price of kerosene and increased its quality attracting most of the customers. (Those evil ba$tards!).
In this situation,

That's a big IF, which has never happened and is an excuse for 'progressives' to increase control.
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2011
The problem is you're assuming companies are keeping the prices low for the public's good.


No, I don't. Prices are kept down so they can sell more product and make more profit.


If prices are higher, they don't need to sell as much to make the same profit. If the public is dependent on the product, the amount of product sold will remain the same and prices can be increased at will by the sole supplier with no competition.

Standard Oil reduced the price of kerosene and increased its quality attracting most of the customers. (Those evil ba$tards!).


There's more to life than the short term.

They bought up competing companies which allowed them to further lower the price allowing more companies to get gobbled up. By then the public/infrastructure was dependent on petroleum products. There's no reason to keep price low without competition.

That being said, I can't say what would have happened if the antitrust laws hadn't kicked in in the 1890s. Neither can you.
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2011
Who are 'they'?

China thought 'they' controlled all the rare earth elements. 'They' were wrong.


'They' referred to the monopolizing company. China is not a company and rare earths are a natural resource. It is where it is, it's not produced anywhere.

Let's say there's a company that buys and refines most of the world's rare earths. There are some smaller companies that also buy some and sell some.

The larger company comes along and offers to buy out the smaller companies. Some say yes, some say no. The company takes a hit on profits and decides to lower prices for a couple years. The remaining smaller companies can't compete and either accept the offer to be bought or go under. Eventually there's just the big company, so they put their prices back up. Technologically, there's demand for the product and there are no other refineries for these rare earths so prices increase as the company chooses.

Any new startup could be easily bought out or forced under by repeating above.
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2011
In a free market are there any reasons not to engage in these kind of business practices? I can think of having a conscience and maybe pride.
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2011
That's a big IF, which has never happened and is an excuse for 'progressives' to increase control.


There you are with progressives wanting control again. I don't think it's about control as much as it is about protection. I know I don't want control everything, I just don't want to get screwed over in the name of profit. I don't want to see others getting screwed over either.

I'm assuming there are more than a few other people you'd label a 'progressive' that feel the same way.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2011
If prices are higher....
Any new startup could be ...
Let's say there's a company....

[
You make a lot of assumptions to support your desire for control.
Where is the data that supports your fantasies?
Neither can you.

Yes, I can. It has been documented.
"When monopoly did appear, it was solely because of government intervention. For example, in 1890 a bill was introduced into the Maryland legislature that "called for an annual payment to the city from the Consolidated [Gas Company] of $10,000 a year and 3 percent of all dividends declared in return for the privilege of enjoying a 25-year monopoly.[22] This is the now-familiar approach of government officials colluding with industry executives to establish a monopoly that will gouge the consumers, and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues." http://mises.org/...ly#ref13
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2011
"Elissa to drill at Nevada rare earths project by year end "
http://www.mining...11-07-22
"Japanese researchers develop EV motor not reliant on rare earth metals"
http://www.nevada...dex.aspx
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2011
Neither can you.


Yes, I can. It has been documented.


Really? The unfulfilled past of antitrust laws not getting passed and Standard Oil retaining its monopoly into the future has been documented? Your example is from a different government created monopoly.

First of all, I do NOT support government aided monopolies. Politicians with profit driven motives used regulation to their advantage in the early/mid 20th century. This is BAD and I'm totally against it.

That being said, the existence of government aided monopolies in the past does NOT discount the possibility natural monopoly.

If you think of the government as a company, the government aided monopolies show what a very large company with huge market share could do to squash any rising competition without regulation to stop them.

How many government aided monopolies have been created in the US in the recent past due to modern regulations?
Javinator
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2011
And I really have a tough time thinking of Standard Oil as not becoming a natural monopoly. They were growing to be huge and that growth likely would have continued if antitrust laws hadn't kicked in and broken the company up.

The danger isn't in the short term where prices go down while competition exists. The danger is when the market matures to the point where larger companies have formed and being to merge into even larger companies until a monopoly is potentially reached.

Again, there's been no evidence of this because anti-trust laws were enacted near the beginning of the industrial revolution when mass production became a possibility. The market never got to the point of maturity where natural monopolies could exist before the anti-trust laws were passed.

Also, isn't a major reason those government aided monopolies don't exist as monopolies any more due to the use of antitrust laws?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (17) Aug 26, 2011
One of the longest lived monopolies was ATT, which required support of the US govt to exist
Well of course. Can you imagine the state of communication if regional companies had instituted individual standards in order to limit competition?

This was the same with railroads. Different gauges and standards existed throughout the country and much time and $ was wasted transferring cargo until what's-his-name ruthlessly forced them all to sell or go out of business. With the govts help. Southern railroads were left unstandardized which was a major cause of their defeat. Now was THAT Planned? Add it to the list.

Microsoft was one such monopoly of necessity as the new tech could not handle more than one OS. And so competition was suppressed by whatever means necessary.

See how these Things work? The advantages of competition will be allowed if and only if they are of Benefit at a particular time, for a particular market. Because not to do so could be ruinous. Obviously.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2011
I do NOT support government aided monopolies.

That's all that exist.
if regional companies had instituted individual standards

What govt monopoly choose Blu ray or VHS tape? Industry does quite well at standardizing when it is their self interest to do so.

"Contrary to popular mythology, Standard Oil's market share declined from 88 percent in 1890 to
64 percent by 1911. Because of intense competition the company's oil production as a
percentage of total market supply had declined to a mere 11 percent in 1911, down from 34
percent in 1898."
http://www.google...;cad=rja
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2011
If you think of the government as a company,

More 'ifs'.
The govt IS NOT a company. It is a monopoly on power.
The market never got to the point of maturity where natural monopolies could exist before the anti-trust laws were passed.

False. http://www.google...;cad=rja
"The most important reason for the collapse of traditional antitrust policy is the absence of any intelligent theory that would explain how private monopoly power could exist and be harmful to consumer welfare."
http://www.hillsd...month=10
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2011
"Indeed, while the government trustbusters were indictingand the courts were convictingfirms engaged in rivalrous market activity, the government itself was creating and protecting business monopolies throughout the economy. Interestingly, such monopolies were all but immune from antitrust.

The theory of market monopoly (reviewed earlier) fails because free markets are open to rivalry and competition. But if government legally restricts entry and competition (as was the case in the trucking industry between 1935 and 1980) then it creates "monopoly power" for the business organizations protected from competition. Government licensing, certificates of public convenience, quotas (both foreign and domestic), legal franchises, and other legal barriers are the essence of resource misallocating monopoly. The firms protected from competition enjoy the advantages of legal monopoly, and the customers and shut-out suppliers are "injured" by this monopoly."
http://www.hillsd.../imprimi
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2011
Standards were motivated from the ground up, not top down:
"In 1916, the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (now IEEE) invited the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers (AIME) and the American Society for Testing Materials (now ASTM International) to join in establishing an impartial national body to coordinate standards development, approve national consensus standards, and halt user confusion on acceptability. These five organizations, who were themselves core members of the United Engineering Society (UES), subsequently invited the U.S. Departments of War, Navy and Commerce to join them as founders."
"Nongovernmental standardization had started twenty years earlier in 1906 with the formation of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)."
http://www.ansi.o...menuid=1
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (16) Aug 26, 2011
Standards were motivated from the ground up, not top down:
Is you talking to me, don ryggoleone? Railroad standards came long before your ASTM and related standards. I'm not going to research it to figure out who initiated it. Standards were unenforceable back then because free enterprise reserved the right to create their own to restrict competition, and there were no govt agencies to enforce them. The Only Way was for big business to muscle the little freemarketeers out, Purposefully and as violently as necessary. Yes, with govt support and a great deal of money from euro Rothschild mega-banksters.

This is how Empire gets the Important Things done. Similarly there was no 'competition' in dividing Africa up amongst the world powers at the same time. It was done quickly, cleanly, and ruthlessly. The continent had resources essential to the completion of the industrial revolution and the next wars. It was Vital that these did not fall into the wrong hands.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2011
Can you imagine the state of communication if regional companies had instituted individual standards in order to limit competition?

I imagine would have had much better phones and much better, cheaper service, sooner. That's what happened after the govt ended its monopoly.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2011
"Contrasting this 15-year patent monopoly period with the competitive period that followed the expiration of the Bell patents in 1894, average daily calls per 1,000 people jumped from 37 in 1895 to 391.4 in 1910. The number of telephones per 1,000 people also showed much more dramatic expansion during the competitive period after patent expiration than before. Telephones per 1,000 people rose from only 1.1 in 1880 to 4.8 in 1895, but skyrocketed to 82 by 1910. (See Table 1.) "
http://www.cato.o...2-6.html
Bog_Mire
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2011
"I imagine would have had much better phones and much better, cheaper service, sooner. That's what happened after the govt ended its monopoly."

I get what your saying, but it is not as black and white a picture as you would paint. Take my country, Australia, where a gov. run monopoly teleco ensured the regional (remote and sparesly populated) had access to basic phone services for a long time. Since the privatisation of said teleco we have seen a steady decline in services offered to important rural agricultural areas because of a lack of perceived profitability. This privatisation was carried out by a right wing gov (less gov in business) but we now have a left wing in power which has committed to a National Broadband Network which will ensure optic fibre and or wireless access to everyone, everywhere. After the rollout and infrastructure is up and working a degree of privatisation will occur, but importantly with government oversights that ensure country folk aren't left out.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (15) Aug 27, 2011
I imagine would have had much better phones and much better, cheaper service, sooner. That's what happened after the govt ended its monopoly.
The govt ended it's monopoly only when it was advantageous to do so. 'A proper time for everything under the sun.' According to your Book of Spells.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2011
I agree Eth, legitimate was a bad choice of words, legal is much better. I agree that some illicit drugs are worse than others, I disagree that ANY should be illegal, no matter how bad they are.

I also hate to agree with marjon on any point, but it's basically impossible for a business to maintain a monopoly without governmental collusion. If they DO maintain a monopoly without government help it's because they're doing GOOD business...period.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (17) Aug 27, 2011
Hey RyggeMiG
Freemarkets are alive and well in Nigeria-

"President Goodluck Jonathan walked amid the debris left behind after Friday's attack in Nigeria's capital, Abuja. Jonathan toured the shattered reception area of the building, where a suicide bomber crashed an explosive-laden sedan before detonating his bombs.
He promised to address the threat posed by the sect known locally as Boko Haram ['non-Islamic education is a sin') though so far, his weakened government has been unable to stop the group from carrying out assassinations and bombings at will in Africa's most populous nation."

-These freemarketeers would eliminate free markets altogether. Capitalism would not survive without a strong govt to protect it as well as regulate it so that it does not consume itself.

Because as we know, capitalism = competition = war, and as von clauswitz pointed out the best way to win a war is to destroy the enemy and not to capture ground (markets).
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (17) Aug 27, 2011
'All's fair in love and war.' Love and war in that order - humanity's 2 greatest problems. Our tropical urge to reproduce creates the conditions which always lead to war.

And people can ALWAYS be expected to cheat in either endeavor, because propagating is at the root the ONE thing important enough to fight and die for.

The god of love is indeed a Man of war. History shows us this.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2011
How many times do I have to say this. The only legitimate function of the govt is to protect private property.
When the govt begins to plunder, redistribute income, etc., it fails.
BoA is essentially destroyed yet the govt, through proxies like Buffet, are propping it up.
If competition is war we had better stop playing sports and giving grades in schools.
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2011
-Actually I believe it was Von Ludendorff who theorized that the proper goal was to destroy the enemy and not capture his territory? Germans do understand free markets don't they?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (17) Aug 27, 2011
-Actually I believe it was Von Ludendorff who theorized that the proper goal was to destroy the enemy and not capture his territory? Germans do understand free markets don't they?
Indeed they do. In my rush to brilliance I lost propriety for a moment. You have my back sir.
How many times do I have to say this.
Until you get it right? The LEGITIMATE function of any particular govt is to do what it was created to do, and this rarely involves protecting 'private property', whatever that is, for any appreciable length of time.

The Empire giveth and the Empire taketh away. Perhaps there is private property in the promised land -?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (16) Aug 27, 2011
Napoleon properly defined 'private property' for the modern age.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2011
The LEGITIMATE function of any particular govt is to do what it was created to do,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2011
"Life, faculties, productionin other words, individuality,
liberty, propertythis is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful
political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all
human legislation, and are superior to it."

{Must be one reason Lenin required all communists to be atheists.}

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have
made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and
property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in
the first place."
"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the
individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural rightfrom Godto defend his
person, his liberty, and his property."
"it follows that a group
of men have the right to organize and support a common force
to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective
rightits reason for existing, its lawfulnessis based on
individual right."
The Law.
The reason socialists can't recognize individual rights.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (16) Aug 27, 2011
Snore. You believe everything you read? Define liberty. Define happiness. Describe the relative value of these things.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2011
Snore. You believe everything you read? Define liberty. Define happiness. Describe the relative value of these things.

Do you?
Inherent, unalienable human rights are axioms.
The alternative is Auto's world of anti-liberty and anti-happiness.
hush1
1.8 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2011
The god of love is indeed a Man of war.

The Empire has pledge to bury this truth as an inscription to your tombstone. They told me they are covering all of the costs you incur on them - including divulging their tactics/strategies. They ask me to ask you until then:
What is your price?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2011
It seems the 'progressives' here are quite infatuated with war and empire.
But that should be no surprise as the 'progressives' started the Spanish American War, put the US into WWI which led to WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, and the current wars against Islam.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2011
Nigeria...really? Way to compare apples to fucking oranges Otto.

Can you shit on command? Roll over? Play dead?

*claps*
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2011
Nigeria...really? Way to compare apples to fucking oranges Otto...*claps*
I understand that there are people who do fuck oranges, to avoid the clap perhaps? Is this what youre referring to?

Free enterprise in the absence of govt control as marjon seems to prefer may deviate from the forms you might be accustomed to. As in nigeria, where markets are determined by the use of force. Versteht? Probably not. Islam prohibits usury, which would be death to capitalism.

Without a govt specifically formulated to protect and regulate the system, an alternate social system can and will take hold to abolish the system and instill its own, in order to LIMIT COMPETITION.

Religionism, communism, organized crime, whoever happens to show up first. The USSR most resembled the church in medieval europe in the conditions it produced, irrespective of what either purported to stand for. The RESULTS were the same. The effects on everyday life were similar for most people.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2011
Free markets are inherently unstable as marx pointed out.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2011
Democracy is only a sort of free market of leadership is it not? And aristotle said that democracy will always degenerate into despotism because corruption will eat it from the inside out.

I dont understand why you fail to grasp just how frail free markets are marjon, how susceptible they are to corruption. Perhaps you dont realize that people arent STUPID? At least some people.

Perhaps you dont realize that when markets become full and competition threatens to drive people out of business they become desperate because it is THEIR families who are under threat. They will begin to call in favors in their social groups. They will make threats. They will pay bribes.

I remember when one resourceful businessman cut down a steel bridge to keep a competitor on the other side of the lake. One can always expect similar when times get tough, or whenever competition shows up, really.

Because some people are not STUPID.
Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 27, 2011
Can you shit on command? Roll over? Play dead?
I can!! pantpant
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 27, 2011
-Actually I believe it was Von Ludendorff who theorized that the proper goal was to destroy the enemy and not capture his territory? Germans do understand free markets don't they?
Indeed. Germans came up with the concept of Lebensraum.

"Eminent domain (United States), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia), or expropriation (South Africa and Canada) is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent."

-Or without, whichever. 'Due compensation' might be the ability to keep your life or the clothes on your back. I understand FEMA can be good at this, given the right circumstances (or the assumption of such)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 27, 2011
IN RELATED NEWS: Free markets are alive and well in Mexico!

"Armed men burst into a casino in the northern Mexican city of Monterrey on Thursday and set a fire that killed at least 52 people and injured several others..."

"...it appears six men arrived at the casino in two vehicles, spread a flammable liquid and lighted it. El Norte, a local newspaper, quoted witnesses as saying that at least a dozen men entered and ordered everyone to get out, setting off a stampede for the few exits that was accompanied by explosions, smoke and flames."

-Uh oh Here cum da revenooers to restore freedom and justass:

"MONTERREY, Mexico (AP) The Mexican army is raiding casinos in a northern city two days after an arson attack killed 52 people.

"An official of Mexico's Attorney General's Office says soldiers and federal agents have confiscated hundreds of slot machines at five casinos in the city of Monterrey."
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2011
What 'free' markets in Mexico?

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2011
What 'free' markets in Mexico?

Rival gangs for control of drugs, prostitution, gambling, extortion. One gang decided to torch the competition. The govt then decided to regulate. Punitively.

What is the difference between this and Somalia?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 27, 2011
Rival gangs for control of drugs, prostitution, gambling, extortion.

How is this free?
Free means free from force or fraud for customers choose.
Gangs are just another coercive force, like a govt.
The Mexican govt is just another rival gang recognized by the 'community of nations'.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 27, 2011
Cartels often extort casinos and other businesses, threatening to attack them or burn them to the ground if they refuse to pay.

http://www.chron....2638.php
The IRS does the same, threaten to shut them down if the don't pay.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2011
So you're saying that, when competition crosses some arbitrary boundary in 'assertiveness' it is no longer free? Who sets this boundary? Not the consumer - the people in that Mexican casino had no say did they? I suppose they could choose to gamble elsewhere except that they're DEAD.

Had they not died then the competition would merely have lost and the consumers would have no choice where to gamble and the govt would have done nothing.

This happens all the time in Mexican free markets.

And in this example the IRS is a part of the conglomerate which burns your business down if you don't pay or leave. They got there because of their good business sense.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2011
Who sets this boundary?

Those that accept the axiom of inherent, unalienable, individual rights.
They got there because of their good business sense.

The mob that controls the IRS has good business sense? Data shows their 'business' is collapsing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 28, 2011
Those that accept the axiom of inherent, unalienable, individual rights.
Right. Which is not the businessmen compelled to cheat in order not to lose.
The mob that controls the IRS has good business sense? Data shows their 'business' is collapsing.
The mob that burned down that casino isnt doing so well either. The difference is, you pay your govts protection money so you dont have to pay the mob. Subtle difference.

Corruption is inevitable. How do you propose to stop it? Starve yourself?

"In 1991 Hazare launched the People's Movement against Corruption, a popular movement to fight against corruption in Ralegaon Siddhi. In the same year he protested against the collusion between 40 forest officials and timber merchants."

"Within a few days Anna Hazare's first fast demanding a strong lokpal (on April 5, 2011), supporters across various cities of India started a campaign known as "I Am Anna Hazare"

'I am ryggesoggy2'... Naw it doesnt ring. Better try something else.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Aug 28, 2011
Those that accept the axiom of inherent, unalienable, individual rights.
Right. Which are usually only inherent and unalienable for members of ones own tribe. Which could be freemasons or lutherans or steelworkers or whomever. It can very well be for the people who work for you or your own family (la familia).

Rarely do 'inherent or unalienable' encompass anyone you should happen to encounter, especially if you encounter them as a business adversary, and their success might mean that your family would have to suffer.

The only way to enforce 'inherent and unalienable' across a wider spectrum of the populace is by an artificial governance which can punish those who do not comply. This costs money. Better to pay them than Guido and the boys isnt it?

After all, at least with the IRS you have some chance to determine how that money is spent. Guido dont care what you tink nohow so shaddup awready an coff up.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Aug 28, 2011
Those that accept the axiom of inherent, unalienable, individual rights.
Ya see marjon, without govt there will be govt. Either there is a govt, or there is Guido and the boys which is also govt. You cant resist the govt; neither can you resist Guido and the boys.

If you shoot an IRS agent you get a trial. If you shoot Guido your whole family dies in a house fire. Which would you prefer?

But hey - maybe da boss likes you. Maybe you should only lose your kneecaps an we call it even, eh? Because nobody can say da boss dont have a heart. NOBODY.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.